Aphobius

The leaderboard shows only the first 3 places? I think you should put everyone that completed the challenge on it.

Thank you for your congratulations guys. I don't think adding a mandatory roll rule is a good idea, it's reducing the maximum altitude that you can get.

Posted it a few minutes ago in other thread. No one knows about this one? http://alexmoon.github.io/ksp/

You can use this one instead, it's much better. http://alexmoon.github.io/ksp/

Space shuttle name: Like a Baws I guess the score is 400053m. Failed a little on the deorbit burn, I could have easily done everything again and deorbit properly, but what followed was funny and I left it like this, just as a reminder of what kind of game we are playing. I've also encountered that bug with the craft exploding when getting close to the ground, but I managed to land it. PS: You could move the leaderboard closer to the beginning of the post, so it's easier for people to find.

Good news everybody!!! Scott Manley announced his participation in my challenge! It looks like finally I'll get some competition, I can't wait for his entry. Note: Click the picture to see the comments on youtube.

I suggest you to leave out the circular within 100m part. If the scoring is based only on the Pe, having a much higher Ap means only wasted fuel. Having a rule that requires a circular orbit makes the challenge require a lot of unnecessary calculations and makes the challenge annoying. Just let the people get the Ap as high as they want and after that raise the Pe until they are out of fuel (or have just enough for the landing). I bet no one knows how to calculate this properly and they'll just get frustrated because they'll get out of fuel at the Ap and will not be able to complete the circularization, which will disqualify them and it will not matter how high they've got the Pe. Anyway, it's up to you, that stuff can be calculated or people can just try to be safe so they don't get the Ap too high. Note: I've got a 380km circular orbit and landed on the runway on the first try, with sloppy maneuvering and without calculating anything. Just so people have a reference to know what they should aim for.

What does this mean? Highest semi-major axis, highest Ap+Pe or simply the highest Pe?

2:37 I was going to wait for more people to try it, but I guess no one else would have tried it anymore, so I've improved the design a little and flew it a little better this time. The second landing was a little messy again and everything can be improved overall, so there is still place for competition.

3:41 The landings were a little messy, but I wanted to leave place for competition. EDIT: Forgot to mention, it's stock. And sorry for the song.

I don't think the new patch changed anything.

The design can still be improved. I wait for someone to beat it. gm537 to post the imgur album you have to write this [ imgur ]z4aMC[ /imgur ] without the spaces.

I think I can easily get over 6000km, just got 5600km with a badly optimized rocket. I'll post a new entry when I get home, I'm at work right now.

Craft file Seeing Tsevion's entry, it looks like a K2-XL would work better, I think you can get up to around at least 5500km with a properly designed rocket.

God of Kerbal

I bet that most people who are saying how easy it is, lack the intellectual ability (shouldn't be taken as an insult .... it's rocket science after all) to calculate the delta-v even for a simple rocket (that uses both liquid fuel rockets and SRBs). PS: Since most of you will probably think I'm a troll that just wants to insult the highly intelligent people from here. I'll give a short explanation of why calculating the delta-v for that simple rocket is harder than most of the people here thought it is (else they wouldn't have said how easy it is to solve that "simple equation"). In the hypothetical situation where you have a single liquid fuel tank and SRBs that finish burning before the liquid fuel is over. Assuming that the SRBs have different ISP from the liquid fuel rocket, you have to calculate the delta-v for the first part of the burn (until the SRBs are done burning) and after that calculate the delta-v for the rest of the rocket (without SRBs and with the remaining liquid fuel after dropping the SRBs) and add the obtained values. To do this you have take into consideration the burn time of the SRBs and the flow rate of the liquid fuel engine. And I don't even mention the variation of the ISP with the altitude while inside of an atmosphere. I doubt that ANYONE runs high precision missions in this game. You people should just use grossly overpowered rockets and stop talking about how easy rocket science is. (I don't say you should stop discussing, but if you want to learn more about rocket science, saying how easy it is, when you hardly know anything about it, is not a good way to start doing it.)

Video I haven't done it especially for this challenge, did it a few months ago. It's full stock. Unfortunately I wasn't able to land on the runway.

It breaks a few rules (landing gears, the orbit thing and the flag), but it can serve as an inspiration for the people that want to enter this challenge.

Landing on the VAB And in a little different place

But driving a rover in a straight line for 20 hours is less medically insane than this? I was thinking you people like this kind of stuff.

Video My latest highlight on twitch. I haven't done it before, using the map and recording the steps. Everything is calculated during the mission (except a few things like the position of the deorbit burn, the required delta-v to get back from the Mun to Kerbin, but I kinda failed on both of this, I didn't remembered them properly =)) ). I'm sorry for not explainig what I'm doing during the video, but I had no viewers (I guess most of the people enjoy 20 hours north pole expeditions, not this) and I didn't wanted to ... contaminate the highlight with my voice. =)) The initial plan was to land it on the helipad, but I had a few problems during the mission (got into a retrograde orbit around Kerbin after I escaped the Mun and wasted like 400m/s on this, while orbiting Kerbin I entered the atmosphere by mistake, wasted like 300m/s on this too and it's hard in general to be efficient while flying from the cockpit), but the deorbit burn was also a little off. I might try it again some other time and maybe I'll also explain what I'm doing.

Really? What is this forum turning into?

Yes, I didn't used any mods.

Boring people, why no one else joins this? 27m52s

When I've said that, I didn't meant to be rude to strangers on the internet or just strangers in general. As a funny fact, I'm a much nicer person on the internet =)). Because if I'm rude to strangers, as you say, they'll just ignore me. But in real life, when my friends do something wrong, if I'm sure about it, I want to be sure they acknowledge what they did wrong and remove any doubt from their mind that it might have been good =)). Ok, I don't have many friends. =)) =)) But the ones that I have respect me, rude as I am, because they know I try to help them and when I say something I don't say it without being well thought and without being able to explain it in the greatest detail. I think in this way people can improve much more, than just all being like "Yeah, I think this would be better like this.", "Yes mate, you have a point, but I i still like it more like this", "Mkay, cool.".